Add Mask/Size in Pixel: Why '512x512' is the max?

[goddi]

Greetings,

I asked this question in another posting as a side issue but it didn't get any response.

When you 'Add Mask', the 'Size in Pixel' default is '512x512', and that is the maximum size. I am expecting to be able choose more like an aspect ratio to fit the entire image's aspect ratio. So I figured that if I select '512x341' for a rectangle, I'd get the correct aspect ratio (1.50) for my images. Or be able to select '1020x768' or '1920x1080', etc. I know I can move the 'handles' to adjust the size of the mask but wouldn't it be better to be able to input the exact aspect ratio?

Why does the rectangle only give a maximum '512x512' aspect ratio and not choices for normal aspect ratios?

Gary

[davegee]

You can re-size/distort after creating it.

It's a good idea to make some masks in an image editor. One that I find useful is a diamond shape with and without feathering.

DG

[goddi]

You can re-size/distort after creating it.

DG

Dave,

Yes, but wouldn't it be nicer to be able to set the precise pixel size you want when creating the mask? When you re-size/distort in O&A, you are going only by visual means, not exact pixels (unless I am missing something). The maximum of 512x512 just does not make sense to me.

Gary

[Lin Evans]

Hi Gary,

Part of the answer is probably that no matter how many separate choices were offered, someone would always want another. Another reason is that rarely does someone mask the entire screen - it's just not the usual purpose for a mask. It's so simple to drag it to the dimensions you choose and to distort it to your own purposes that having a bunch of rarely used aspect ratios would probably be superfluous from a programming perspective.

Best regards,

Lin

[davegee]

Exact resolution AR is possible via "Size/Position......"

DG

[Lin Evans]

Maybe we should segregate the answer between the "mask rectangle" (in this case) and the "Mask Container." The container (I know. rhetorical) defines that area of display which "could" be affected by the mask. The mask itself is variously called a rectangle, circle or simply "mask" defines that actual area of display affected by the masking.

The container can be precisely adjusted to fit the display, but precision is not really important at all here. It's only important that the container be as large or larger than the area masked. There is no relevant penalty for it being larger than the display area just as there is no advantage. The mask itself is rarely equal to the entire display area but rather defines that region of masking. So making the mask container precisely the same aspect ratio and size as the display is just not really an important thing in my opinion.

Best regards,

Lin

[goddi]

Hi Gary,

Part of the answer is probably that no matter how many separate choices were offered, someone would always want another. Another reason is that rarely does someone mask the entire screen - it's just not the usual purpose for a mask. It's so simple to drag it to the dimensions you choose and to distort it to your own purposes that having a bunch of rarely used aspect ratios would probably be superfluous from a programming perspective.

Best regards,

Lin

Ok...But why was '512x512' chosen for the mask rectangle as the maximum default? Why not 612x612 or 250x500 or ??? Just not sure what the '512' has to do with anything. Why not just have it blank and let the user input his own size? Why not have a list of normal ARs and a Custom input? Just wondering what '512' is supposed to relate to.

Gary

Gary

[Lin Evans]

Does 512 have to have anything to do with anything? Don't overthink it... In the immortal words of Bill Murray: "It just doesn't matter."

Best regards,

Lin

[goddi]

Does 512 have to have anything to do with anything? Don't overthink it... In the immortal words of Bill Murray: "It just doesn't matter."

Best regards,

Lin

Lin,

If it doesn't matter, I still wonder why Igor chose that number and made it the 'maximum'. If it didn't matter, I would think he would have left it blank for the user to just fill in something. So it must have mattered to Igor. Perhaps it is just a number he pulled out of the air. I think since that number apparently means nothing, he should make it so it does mean something and does matter. Not being a user of masks, probably because I haven't discovered a use for them yet, I am trying to understand the menu. If that number does not mean anything, then, perhaps others are a bit confused by it, too. Maybe it is just me. But I don't like to see something in the menu choice that 'does not matter'.

I'll just leave it at that.

Thanks... Gary

[Lin Evans]

Hi Gary,

The time will probably come when you find a good reason to use masks. Think of them as a way to confine some activity to a particular place on your image. For example, let's say you wanted to create a fire in a fireplace in a room and you wanted to have the reflections of that fire in some object which sat on the hearth. First you would need to decide how to create your fire and then you would need to find a way to confine it to the exact place where you wanted it such as in a fire place. If you had a room scene with couches, chairs, etc., you wouldn't want the fire in the middle of the couch!

So let's say your fire was a video you took of a fireplace with your video camera or your dSLR in video mode. Let's say you ran the video through a video editor and made it fairly small so it would somewhat fit into the fireplace, but the fireplace in your living room scene was a slightly different size and shape than your video. How would you deal with this? Then there is that reflection you want on the object on the hearth. How would you confine the reflection to just the points you want to show it reflected in?

The solution is to take your image into your editor such as Photoshop and "paint" the exact dimensions of your fireplace with pure white. Then paint the exact areas of the object where you want the reflection pure white. Next you copy and paste your entire image over a transparency and with the eraser tool erase everything except the white areas. Select an area containing the white and save it as a PNG file. Select the other area containing the white and save it likewise. Now you have two custom masks which you simply use to confine your fire and reflection to the proper areas. You can adjst the opacity of the mask to allow more or less of the "reflection" and use the full white inside of the fireplace to confine your fire to that area. You can use these masks as a "child" of the main image so if you zoom, etc., they stay in proper size relationship. So you play your video inside the mask containers and now you have something you couldn't have accomplished without the mask.

There are literally thousands of ways to use masks effectively in your shows. You will become very fond of them once they become second nature to create and implement.

Best regards,

Lin

[PGA]

One that I find useful is a diamond shape with and without feathering. You cannot create that in PTE.

Dave,

Why doesn't a rotate on a square mask give you a diamond?

Peter

[davegee]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for pointing that out. It caused me to go back and see if I had missed something, which I did!

I was also making the point that it does no harm to have some pre-defined masks ready to be used in conjunction with pte's.

DG

P.S. It must be an age thing - I rotated Masks in the Morphing Style that I posted.........

I remember now that you cannot distort a Diamond Mask made in PTE across the corners??

If it is made as a Diamond in an image editor then it can be distorted across corners..............

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Greetings,

I asked this question in another posting as a side issue but it didn't get any response.

When you 'Add Mask', the 'Size in Pixel' default is '512x512', and that is the maximum size. I am expecting to be able choose more like an aspect ratio to fit the entire image's aspect ratio. So I figured that if I select '512x341' for a rectangle, I'd get the correct aspect ratio (1.50) for my images. Or be able to select '1020x768' or '1920x1080', etc. I know I can move the 'handles' to adjust the size of the mask but wouldn't it be better to be able to input the exact aspect ratio?

Why does the rectangle only give a maximum '512x512' aspect ratio and not choices for normal aspect ratios?

Gary

Hi Gary

Looks like your question is a "must have an answer for you?" Masks in PTE I have never tried, if I want to use a similar effect, I create my own in Elements. However as the thread seemed to be dragging on I tried Googling 512 x 512 & came up with some interesting results, one of which was http://xboxforums.create.msdn.com/forums/t/53892.aspx

I assume the developers will eventually come up with a reason, if it's bugging you why not Google?

Eric

Yachtsman1.

[Boogie]

In the dim and distant past when I dabbled with computer programming, I recall the number 512 (and 256) was related to bits and bytes. Perhaps that is where the default 512 number came from.

R

[jt49]

Does 512 have to have anything to do with anything? Don't overthink it... In the immortal words of Bill Murray: "It just doesn't matter."

512 is a power of 2 (2 to the 9th power), typically a number that computers like to have. It might be more convenient to have 1024, 2048, or 4096 (2 to the 10th, 11th, or 12th power). On the other hand, 512 does not work that bad. Chose the appropriate size for the mask container, while choosing for the mask just the aspect ratio that you like to see. Examples: 510x340 for 1.5 (3:2), 512x288 for 16:9, 500x400 for 5:4, 512x384 for 4:3, etc. Use the Windows calculator

Regards,

jt

[goddi]

Greetings All,

Apparently, there is something to the maximum 512x512 value. But I still don't understand why Igor put it as the maximum value. Yes, you can modify it. But this adds some confusion for people like me that might not be as far into the technical capabilities as other might. Yes, Lin, one day I might get more creative.Thanks all for your input. I have a broader perspective on this.

Thanks...

Gary

[tom95521]

My best guess as to why 512 is the maxium internal mask size is that it requires more computer resources (cpu, gpu, ram) for larger masks. Rendering all those pixels together in real time is hard work. Publishing a slideshow as a video has the advantage of rendering slower than real time without causing a problem. If you create a mask file 1920x1080 it has almost 8x pixels than a 512x512 mask and may cause slower PCs to hesitate. You may not notice it on the latest intel/amd cpus with fast graphics cards.

Tom

[cead]

Thanks Tom, you came with the right statement!

(After the endless debate.)

Frans

[goddi]

My best guess as to why 512 is the maxium internal mask size is that it requires more computer resources (cpu, gpu, ram) for larger masks. Rendering all those pixels together in real time is hard work. Publishing a slideshow as a video has the advantage of rendering slower than real time without causing a problem. If you create a mask file 1920x1080 it has almost 8x pixels than a 512x512 mask and may cause slower PCs to hesitate. You may not notice it on the latest intel/amd cpus with fast graphics cards.

Tom

Thanks, Tom.

Gary